From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri Jun 18 17:30:08 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41905.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.156]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbTk3-0005b4-6e for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:29:55 -0700 Message-ID: <20040619002924.87876.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.43.213.26] by web41905.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:29:24 PDT Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:29:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] Re: fragment + i-jek To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20040618231936.GT7569@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 8106 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:23:16AM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > I'm assuming the official parser is wrong; fragments cannot be > > > joined by ijeks, but wanted to check. > > > > It's wrong, or rather obsolete. We used not to distinguish between i > > and ijek, grammatically, and the fixes to the official parser were > > lost. > > OK. Slightly wierder one: > > lenu broda kei cu zemucu'o i ja lenu brode > > That seems to be wrong, but why? It's fine without the 'ja'. Same thing, isn't it? {le nu brode} is a fragment. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail